#Retroactive Effect

Because of the principle of vested rights, laws are generally prospective and ar
e not to be applied retroactively.
Civil Code Art. 2252. -- changes made and new provisions laid down by the New Ci
vil Code shall have no retroactive effect if it prejudices or impairs vested or
acquired rights.
//Note New Civil Code is effective April 30 1950, Family Code, Aug 3 1988
///Case: Uson v. Del Rosario 92 Phil. 530
///Case: Republic v. Miller 306 SCRA 183, April 21 1999
--See Art. 165-6, 173 of NCC, relate Art. 124 Family Code. -- Conjungal, powers of
administration does not include disposition or encumberance without authority o
f the court or the written consent of the other spouse. Powers of administration
is now joint in conjugal partnership of gains
--///Case: Valdez v. Republic 598 SCRA 649, Sept. 8, 2009
A(man) married B in 1971. B left A. A believed after a while that B died. A marr
ied C in 1985 without declaration of presumptive death. In 1991, A was naturaliz
ed, and C went to States but C was denied visa because they were not validly mar
ried.
In this case, Family Code will not apply because its application will impair ves
ted rights.
//Under NCC, no need to declare presumptive death. In Rules of Court, If person
missing for more than 7 years, there is a presumption of death and remarraige is
legal even withou a declaration of presumptive death. Article 241 of Family Cod
e, 4 years should transpire and there must be established a well founded belief.
There must be a declaration of presumptive death before a second marriage may b
e valid.
///Case: Ty vs. CA 346 SCRA 86 Nov 27 2000
1977 A married B, no marriage license
1979 A married C with marriage license, no declaration of nullity of the first m
arriage
In 1989 A brought an action to declare his marriage to C void stating that there
was no declaration of nullity.
//Under the NCC, there was no need to declare a void marriage void. Art. 40, bef
ore you can marry, for purposes of remarriage, there must be a declaration of nu
llity.
///Case: Modequillo v. Breva 185 SCRA 766 May 31 1990
A and B married in 1960 and acquired house and lot
1976, A, while driving a truck, ran over C. C did not die

C brought action against A for damages which became final in 1987.

A writ of execution in 1989 was executed for the house and lot where A & B had b
een residing since 1960.
// Under the Civil Code, there must be judicial or extrajudicial recognition of
family home. none of this was done by A and B. Under the Family Code, it is auto
matically deemed family home from the moment of occupancy.
#Marriage
Can the parties stipulate with regard to marriage? Or is marriage provided for b
y law?
Parties can stipulate marriage settlement only.
**The nature, consequences, and incidents of marraige are governed by law.** (Ar
t. 1, Family Code)
///Case: Acebedo v. Arquero 399 SCRA 10 March 11 2003
A (wife) and B married. A is a court stenographer. Falling out, A separated. The
y executed a notarized document providing that A can have another partner, and B
can have another partner.
C files an administrative complaint against A. Should A be suspended or removed
from office due to immorality? Can legal separation be granted in this case?
// the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by law, ther
efore the notarized document is a void agreement. Thus, A can be dismissed becau
se of immorality since A's act is contrary to law, public policy, and morality.
//legal separation cannot be granted because there was consent between A and B t
o commit sexual infidelity. Though the notarized document is void, it is evidenc
e of their consent.
**Review: Marriage**
1. Cannot be stipulated except for marriage settlement;
2. only man and woman can marry (art 1, family code)
3. marriage by proxy?
A and B decided to get married. B met an accident on the day of marriage so he s
ent his twin brother C. A thought that C was her fiance B.
//No valid marriage. because Art. 2, Art 3(3), Art 6 of Family Code and Article
4 states that absence of formal and essential requisites makes marriage void. Ar
ticle 35(5) also applies because there was mistake of identity.
Suppose the marriage occured in California where marriage by proxy is allowed?
Stil void. While marriages solmenized abroad and which conforms to the respectiv
e state law are valid in the Philippines, those prohibited under Articles 35(1,4
,5,6), 36, 37 and 38 are still void.
--///Presumption of validity of marriage

///Case: Araneo v. Occiano 380 SCRA 402 April 11 2002